HRTO 2011

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of police services on the basis of disability (deafness).

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of details.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide particulars by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as it did not include allegations it had the power to deal with.

The applicant, a resident of Manitoba employed by a federal government agency in Winnipeg, filed an application alleging discrimination based on family status.

She alleged that an Ontario-based independent contractor provided discriminatory advice to her manager, leading to her termination.

The respondents requested early dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the employment did not have a sufficient connection to Ontario, as the employer's place of business, the applicant's residence, and her usual place of employment were all outside the province.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability, claiming an Assessment Officer treated him with incivility during a costs assessment hearing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal held that Assessment Officers are judicial officers and their conduct during adjudicative functions does not constitute a 'service' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because they did not live in the same building.

The Tribunal found that although the condominium has two addresses, it is a single condominium with common areas, a shared superintendent, and the same management company.

The Tribunal concluded the parties are occupants of the same building within the meaning of s. 2(2) of the Human Rights Code and allowed the application to proceed.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision addressing pre-hearing requests for orders from both parties.

The respondents sought to strike allegations predating the one-year limitation period, which the Tribunal denied, allowing the historical evidence to provide background and context.

The Tribunal also addressed the applicant's request for document production, ordering the respondents to facilitate the release of a therapy record while deferring other document requests until after the applicant's evidence at the hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) and the Government of Ontario discriminated against him by refusing to provide legal services.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing in writing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the Government of Ontario could not be held liable because the HRLSC is an independent corporation.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the HRLSC's refusal of services was due to a temporary conflict of interest, with no apparent connection to any Code-protected grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on disability, marital status, and family status.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found compelling reasons to continue the proceeding against the personal respondents, as the allegations related directly to their personal conduct.

The Tribunal denied the request for removal.

Additionally, the Tribunal addressed case management issues, directing the self-represented applicant to provide proper disclosure of remedies and documents, and proposing a bifurcated hearing process.

The respondents sought to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing its substance was already dealt with in a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Appeals Resolution Officer decision.

The applicant had appealed that decision to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the final WSIAT decision, noting that proceeding with a preliminary hearing could lead to inconsistent findings or overlapping remedies if the WSIAT appeal overturned the underlying decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to services provided during a labour market re-entry (LMR) program.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an ongoing WSIB appeal dealing with the same subject matter.

Both the applicant and the respondent WSIB agreed that the application should be deferred to avoid duplicative proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB appeal.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceeding to remove three individual employees as personal respondents to the human rights application.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing that she sought apologies from the individuals and that their conduct was central to her claim of failure to accommodate her multiple chemical sensitivities.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and granted the request, finding that the corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability for the employees' actions and was fully capable of remedying any Code infringement found.

The personal respondents were removed as parties.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of the applicant's medical documents and his consent to release records held by a third-party disability management company.

The self-represented applicant objected, citing privacy concerns and a desire to obtain legal advice.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the documents, finding them arguably relevant to the applicant's claims of discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had sufficient time to retain counsel and that his privacy concerns could be addressed through redactions of family members' information.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal based on membership in a vocational association, claiming she suffered a reprisal for refusing to join the Jehovah Witnesses.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that a religious organization is not a vocational association under the Human Rights Code, and the alleged reprisal did not relate to asserting a right under the Code.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability and receipt of public assistance.

A conference call hearing was scheduled to hear the respondent's request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to attend or participate in the scheduled conference call hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

During a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the respondents sought to cross-examine the complainant on his past criminal convictions for assault and theft, as well as a prior judicial finding regarding his credibility.

The Tribunal disallowed the questions, finding that the potential prejudicial effect of admitting such evidence outweighed its minimal probative value.

The Tribunal noted that evidence of past assault convictions could improperly influence the assessment of the complainant's propensity for violence, while past theft convictions and a 13-year-old credibility finding in a different context would be of little assistance in assessing credibility in the current proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents initially requested that the application be dismissed for falling under federal jurisdiction, or deferred pending an Employment Standards proceeding.

After the Tribunal requested written submissions on the jurisdictional issue, the respondents withdrew their requests.

The Tribunal deemed the respondents to have accepted its jurisdiction and directed the application to proceed in the normal course.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation based on receipt of public assistance, claiming his rent geared to income formula did not account for electricity costs unlike others.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

Finding that the applicant did not explain how he was treated differently from those not receiving social assistance, the Tribunal concluded it was plain and obvious the matter fell outside its jurisdiction and dismissed the application at a preliminary stage.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Final Decision that dismissed his human rights application.

He alleged bias, procedural errors, and that the respondents' counsel had no legal status.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already decided and failed to meet any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

Justicia for Migrant Workers (J4MW) sought leave to intervene and present expert evidence in human rights applications alleging sexual harassment and differential pay of migrant workers at the respondent's fish processing facility.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it would cause delay and add complexity.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that J4MW had a particular perspective to add regarding the social context of migrant workers that would assist the Tribunal, and that the new Code and Rules permit granting an intervenor full participatory rights.

The applicant, a teacher, filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal, along with a request for an interim remedy regarding a change in her work assignment.

The respondent requested an extension of time to respond to the interim remedy request due to the school principal's absence during the summer closure.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding the respondent had valid reasons.

Additionally, noting that the application raised events older than one year and that the applicant had outstanding grievances, the Tribunal ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the older allegations are time-barred under section 34 of the Code and whether the application should be deferred pending the grievance process.

The applicant requested an interim remedy to maintain her Special Diet Allowance (SDA) at $610 per month, an amount she had been receiving due to an administrative error.

Following changes to the SDA schedule, she was required to reapply and expected her allowance to be reduced to $144.

The Tribunal applied the test for interim remedies and the principles from the Ball decision regarding SDA discrimination.

Finding that the applicant had not presented evidence of general recognition in the medical community that her condition required the requested diet, the Tribunal concluded the application did not appear to have merit and dismissed the request for an interim remedy.